How many people think socialism would work in the United States? Why or why not?

I think it could, but if it were a fusion between that and our current system. I don't think conventional socialism would work though.

What parts of socialism would you want then?

I think you need to be a bit more clear - what exactly do you mean by "socialism"? That's a pretty broad term. I don't think communism would work, for example, but I think more of a focus on the welfare state might be possible, if people could just get over their greed. However, whether or not that's going to happen is a whole other issue.

Marxism.

In that case, I voted no. I just don't think Americans would accept it.

Socialism is the road to tyranny and inequity. The real goals of socialism are not what many of you believe them to be.

They aren't?

Would one be so good, then, as to enlighten the rest of us about the real goals of socialism?

Oh yes, please enlighten us!

You're quite right that socialism tends to lead to tyranny and inequity, however, the road to and the goals of are completely different matters. I'm sure the goals are noble, but the authoritarian policies make sure that those goals get lost or obscured along the way.

Huh? It is an idea, and we know the goals of that idea. Perhaps who be is trying to advocate socialism has some other goals, but you think that is anyone in this forum? (And if outside the forum, who?) You are merely stating that socialism is the road to that, not giving any reasons.. You could point to history, but the execution is not the same as the idea itself. And the nor are the results the same as the goal.(as Dies Irae noted)
I am sure Marxism can be combined with freedom of speech and democracy.(Given people in the democracy vote for socialistic parties, of course.) I am not aware of any country adopting socialism and being a proper democracy at the same time, though.

Also i think socialism misses one key ingredient; people can not really change how things are done. This is because the 'old garde' are often closed-minded. In capitalism, someone might see a better way of doing and can then out-compete the 'old-garde', and the older generation is then forced to acknowledge this fact. I am not sure capitalism is the only way to allow people to change how things are done.
I can well imagine that the 'old-garde' can become so entrenched that they will endanger democracy.(Perhaps this is happening with corporatism)

IMO i think the current system may look like capitalism, but perhaps big corporations might seriously endanger the ability for people to change how things are done. Perhaps this is because it is intrinsic to our age; because scaling things up is so much of a advantage. Perhaps it is because corporations are affecting government (way)to much. Government may help them too much with patents and regulations and such. We could combat this by opening up the larger corporations so people can see how things are done, and perhaps how to improve it. Perhaps by requiring corporations to be more modular, so that there are more entry-points for newcomers. I think the way the stock-market works currently also damages this purpose.

Capitalism has more drawbacks then tendency to corporatism; It has lead to consumer society, because it rewards instilling irrational desire in people. Unmoderated, it focuses too much of people working and too little on morality.

I would also like to note that government, and non-government systems are there for some goal. Perhaps people do not realize that this goal is not the same for everyone, and perhaps, before discussing what government should be like, we should discuss what its goal should be.(it could be that LordFu did not realize that our goals simply are different)

IAWTC.
Do any of you really want the government controlling all of your money, possessions and property?

Socialism leads to tyranny because Socialism requires tyranny to function.

Thought You Should Know - To Be Free or Not To Be Free

Guyot, The Tyranny of Socialism ToC: The Online Library of Liberty

And if you think Socialism is a movement of the people, for the people, think again. Socialism is being used by the richest and most powerfull as people control. That has been the case since the begining. Who paid Marx for his work on the Communist Manifesto? From what class were the Fabian Socialists in Britain? Here's a hint, they weren't middle-class workers.

Look at the Russian revolution. How did Lenon and Trotsky get to Moscow? With who's money did they finance their revolution? Who built and then reaped the benifits of the Russian industrial complex?

The mega-rich support Socialism because it allows for centralization, which makes their oligarchy all the easier to maintain.

Socialism and Liberty
OPA's Sound Off Corner

@LordFu: You think merely asking for tax to pay for someone elses education is tyranny... I dont.. so whats the point. (Read it, and think that covers the first link.) I made this thread to discuss the purpose of societal systems.
About the second part, the point is that democracy and socialism do not exclude each other. I do not care whether the people were being manipulated at that instance.
If you read my previous post well, the real problem i see is that there is no real method of people changing how things are done.
@seisen: Thanks for squashing him with reading material , that is basically what LordFu also does sometimes.

seisen,

So, you are arguing Socialism would reduce government interference, that in a Socialist system the minority doesn't suppress the majority "maliciously", and that "The true definition of socialism is the complete control of the economy by the people.."

Are you serious? That is some of the most misguided drivel I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

Look, the people already control the economy, outside of the current government interference and the myriad of government sanctioned industry collusion and monopoly. It's called supply and demand. They're claiming that "the people" could control it better through government, without any factual support for the claim, while there are mountains of evidence to the contrary.

I love how they use the example of needing to post "rules" in a workplace. That's socialism in action. They attempt to imply that it's a Capitalist issue and would be elliminated. That's disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst.

Hitler was elected. How'd that turn out? Go Socialist Democracy! Socialists always want to gloss over history, but this is the legacy of socialism. China, Russia, Germany, Peru, and the list goes on and on.

A strong centralized government, democratic or not, will not and cannot serve the people. All it provides is an easier avenue for tyrants and despots to seize the reigns of control. That is why "there is no real method of people changing how things are done". Once you construct a system of control on that level, there's nothing to stop it. It's a run-away train. What will it take to prove it?

How is that not tyranny? The government is forcing you to give them money by threatening you. Based on every dictionary I have ever seen, that is called "theft"

I don't know. Obviously 100 years of socialism failing in every aspect doesn't prove it to them. Maybe they should read Animal Farm.

Perhaps a political party could advocate democratic Marxism, though most parties that find themselves advocating more strongly Marxist policies do tend to pass legislation giving the current party far greater power than a truely democratic system should allow, I understand the thinking that they need to be able to have the ability to push through the strong economic and social changes to achieve their goal (Venezuela being a recent example), but it is strongly authoritarian and anti-democratic and can lead to rampant corruption.

Sweden is generally thought of as a good example of a democratic socialist country, though besides currently having a conservative government, are not strongly Marxist and do seem to be quite moderate, especially after their economic problems during the 1970's. They still have a lot of problems with employment though, with many younger people finding it difficult to find work and quite a sizeable amount of people being on extended sick leave.

A system that holds back progress is very undesirable in the long run. The idea that if it works (despite its flaws), we should help keep it this way is understandable, but somewhat saddening. This applies to both non-revisionist socialism and conservative capitalism.

Corporations have been affecting government for a long time. Since the gathering of huge amounts of money was a huge advantage to large technological projects (an example being the building of the early US rail system), there tended to be large amounts of corporate welfare from governments, and it hasn't completely stopped even at this point.

I think it's more down to how the government interacts with corporations and how they are treated in comparison to general businesses rather than simply it being the slippery slope of capitalism.